THE FIVE REPUBLICAN ENDS

 

There are Five Ends in Themselves that we identify as together defining the society that we wish to live in:

 

   A. Civic Virtue

   B. Personal Freedom

   C. Popular Aspiration

   D. Private Wealth

   E. World Peace

 

A. We need Civic Virtue because we want a Good Society. An efficient state that somehow managed to deliver material wellbeing without any sense of ethical human values would not satisfy us. And in any case it would not work.

 

B. We need Personal Freedom because we want to be able to have independent lives, and control to an extent our own destinies and that of our families. We want to be able to live our lives in a well regulated, but not overregulated, society.

 

C. We need Popular Aspiration for through it we can express with others how we wish society to be. We all have Vision and ambitions, however modest, that we want to achieve and share with others. Society must give vent for such feelings and be able to accommodate them.

 

D. We need a degree of Private Wealth for without it we have no Stake in the society. We need a degree of Private Wealth for our own self respect and to allow us to have position. We have a right to expect that a rich society has a responsibility to make sure every citizen achieves a degree of wealth for themselves and their families.

 

E. We need World Peace for we want our own nation to live in peace unthreatened by the terrors of war. We want all Humanity to share this privilege. We want to know foreign lands. Only with peace can we maintain the world for future generations.

 

Virtue, Freedom, Aspiration, Wealth and Peace.

These are the Five Ends we need and want.

These are the Five Ends the Constitution must be able deliver.

 

*          *          *

 

How can these ends be realised in the document of the Constitution? They can be realised, not directly but, indirectly through the Five Ideals necessary to our Republic. These are as follows:

 

I.    Republicanism

II.   Liberalism

III.  Democracy

IV.  Economic Enfranchisement

V.   Non-Aggressive Foreign Relations

 

I. Republicanism delivers Civic Virtue for it creates the Civil Institutions that embody and nurture that Virtue. Civil Institutions make up the Civil Society that is the basis upon which our civilised society is built.

 

II. Liberalism delivers Personal Freedom for it defines our rights to express our opinion and to own property and businesses and to go about our lives with the right amount of contact and the right kind of contact with the Government.

 

III. Democracy delivers Popular Aspiration for it creates channels whereby the people can influence their government. The extent of this influence has to be seeable and the people have to be informed to exercise this influence properly. For this reason Democracy demands open government.

 

IV. Economic Enfranchisement delivers Private Wealth for it ensures that each citizens is educated to prepare them for a working life - a working life in which they are justly rewarded with personal and monetary fulfillment and that allows them to accumulate assets that only they and their families can specially prize. Economic Enfranchisement means a guaranty of standards and quality of life for everyone.

 

V. Non-Aggressive Foreign Relations deliver World Peace, as the new Republic plays a conciliatory role on the world stage wherever possible. The counterproductive effect of Aggressive Foreign Relations are clear enough from history but especially recent history. Non-Aggressive Foreign Relations means adjusting our needs to suit the resources we can access without creating conflicts with other nations. It means coming to terms with and understanding different cultures and accepting that they have the same pride in their identity that we have in ours, and that we can learn from them more than we know.

 

*          *          *

 

The Five Ideals insert themselves into the Constitution by means of Five Political or Practical Aspects that each has. The Ideals are just that: Ideals to be striven for with the acceptance that we will never perfectly realise them. The Aspects are what we use in attempting to realise the Ideals. These are as follows:

 

I. Republicanism defined by:

1. A Civil Society comprising Civil Institutions (Government or Chartered) whose members are appointed according to merit, qualification or achievement
2. Different Powers or Functions of Government are defined (such as Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and Protector of the Constitution), and these are embodied in separate, independent Government Institutions (which may be Civil or Democratic Institutions).
3. Checks and Balances operating between the Institutions embodying these Functions
4. Regional/Local Government Civil and Democratic Institutions to balance with the center
5. Public Services (including the Military) provided for the benefit of the nation's people, organisations, businesses and natural resources, and also to some extent, great or small, to contribute to the benefit of such things anywhere in the world  

 

II. Liberalism defined by:

1. Judicial rights for Individuals (Bill of Rights)

2. Freedom of Speech

3. Protection of minorities

4. Right to create private companies

5. Right to own property

 

III. Democracy defined by:

1. Government by the majority, or largest minority, through elections of Representatives for a limited period by secret ballot
2. Referendums of the Electorate directly on Constitutional issues
3. Open government
4. Right of peaceful protest.
5. Minimisation of citizens being subject to legislation enacted overseas

 

IV. Economic Enfranchisement defined by:

1. Right to education
2. Right to work for fair pay and conditions
3. Right to be taxed fairly
4. Right to good inexpensive healthcare and public transport
5. Right to fair state awards/benefits

 

V. Non-Aggressive Foreign Relations defined by:

1. Mixed/flexible armed forces (not directed at specific nations and no top heavy systems)
2. Resistance to military treaties with other nations
3. Minimisation of dependency on other nations for resources (of any kind not just obviously of military significance.)
4. Help for developing nations
5. Support for UN

 

The route starts with the Ends we wish to achieve. The Ends are Social.

 

These Ends are then translated into Ideals. The Ideals express our Political Philosophy.

 

The Ideals are then translated into the Aspects. The Aspects are Political.

 

The Aspects must then be translated in the Constitution. The Constitution is the Republic.

 

*          *          *

 

A problem of civilised states that has always been of central concern to republican thinkers has been the power of Executive. The tendency for power to accumulate in one Executive body or even one Executive figure was an important reason why the early Republics were created. Republican Constitutions have always been framed in order to limit Executive Power and prevent it from becoming excessive. In the past Excessive Executive Power has been variously called "tyranny", "despotism" and "dictatorship".

 

Each of the Five Ideals - Republicanism, Liberalism, Democracy, Economic Enfranchisement and Non-Aggressive Foreign Relations - represents a different way of restraining Executive Power. They are separately and collectively important to achieving this restraint. They also enable us to strive to achieve the Five Ends.

 

In the United Kingdom at the present time we have all of the Five Ideals to some degree or another, but none in sufficient degree to achieve the aim of restraining Executive Power. We are probably strongest in realising the Second Ideal of Liberalism and weakest in the First of Republicanism.

 

In particular, the Second and Third Political Aspects of the First Ideal of Republicanism, namely:

2. Different Powers or Functions of Government are defined (such as Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and Protector of the Constitution), and these are embodied in separate, independent Government Institutions (which may be Civil or Democratic Institutions).

3. Checks and Balances operating between the Institutions embodying these Functions

The Kingdom's constitution puts enormous power into the hands of the Head of State, the Monarch, but because the Monarch has no political Authority it is unable to exercise that power with the result that its power flows back to the Head of Government, the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, under the Parliamentary System, the Prime Minister exercises almost complete control over the Legislature, i.e. Parliament, by virtue of his or her party automatically having a majority in the elected Lower House, the House of Commons.

Thus the office of Prime Minister effectively assumes the Functions of Executive and Legislature.

But it does not stop there. Although in theory the Upper House of Parliament, the House of Lords, has some authority over the constitution, the reality is that the Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet can initiate changes to the Constitution, almost at will (see British Republicans at Newsvine). Changes to the constitution are enacted exactly as if they were Statutes! And so the Function of Protector of the Constitution also comes back to the Prime Minister.

The office of Prime Minister thus has the Functions of Executive, Legislature and Protector of the Constitution wrapped into one. Of the first four Functions of State, that have been identified only the Judiciary is left out of the Prime Minister's control. We may be thankful that this is the case, for otherwise, the office of Prime Minister would have no restraint on it at all, and the citizens no defense against its power except to deny the incumbent continuation of office at the next election, but, nevertheless, obligated to elect another with exactly the same powers.

There is not a leader in the western world that has the powers of the British Prime Minister. By any measure the United Kingdom suffers from Excessive Executive Power. Recent Prime Ministers have fully exploited the power or their office to the detriment of the nation.

Any nation anywhere when looking at the drafting, or redrafting, of its Constitution inevitably confronts the most salient problems that it is experiencing currently and has experienced in its recent history.

For instance, when drafting a new postwar Constitution for Germany, the Framers decided against having a President with real powers, as they were understandably afraid of anything that could look like a demagogic dictator. When de Gaulle initiated the redrafting of the French Constitution to create the Fifth Republic he gave more power to the President as the Fourth Constitution created after the Second World War, it was felt, left too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister.

In confronting the task of framing a new Constitution for Great Britain, the problem of Prime Ministerial power will inevitably loom large. It is the Excessive Executive Power that we suffer from that militates against the Five Ideals and leaves the nation economically, socially, morally, politically, militarily and culturally the poorer.

*          *          *

As the position of the Judiciary within the Kingdom, whilst not perfect, is not too bad, the focus of reform must be on the Functions of Executive, Legislature and Protector of the Constitution and how these are to be embodied in the Government Institutions.*

The Monarchy cannot survive as a Constitutional Institution, for it is the Monarchy that is most responsible for the concentrate of powers in the Prime Minister's office. So after ruling out a Constitutional Monarchy we are left with three possible Republican systems, a Parliamentary Republic, a Presidential Republic or a Semi-Presidential Republic. These will be considered in turn.

A. A Parliamentary Republic is the most similar to what we have now. In a Parliamentary Republic, the Lower House of Parliament, the House of Commons, is democratically elected for a limited term and the majority party then forms a government. The leader of that party then automatically becomes chief of the Executive, the Prime Minister*. The Prime Minister alone chooses his or her Cabinet.

The Head of State, the President, may or may not be elected, but in any case (as in Germany or Ireland) performs a mainly ceremonial role, rather like our existing Monarch. If the new Republic adopted this system it might seem that it would be little different from the existing arrangements leaving the Prime Minister with similarly Excessive Executive Power. This is not necessarily the case, however, as Prime Ministerial Power can be compromised in four ways, and some or all of these operate in most existing Parliamentary Republics:

(i)   More power over the Executive is handed to the Upper House of Parliament. In theory the Upper House in the Kingdom currently does have power. It can amend legislation going through the House of Commons and as the highest legal court in the land can rule on constitutional matters. However, until now it has been handicapped in exercising these powers for the same reason that has left the Monarch impotent: it has a large hereditary component. In addition the conditions surrounding the appointments of the remaining members has not always been regarded without suspicion of graft or favour and so their authority has again been undermined.

In spite of this, there is no reason why there should not be a properly constituted Upper House (preferably wholly appointed) that could offer real restraint on Executive power. In any case a more powerful Upper House is also desirable in the other two types of Republican Constitutions, the Presidential and the Semi-Presidential.

(ii)  Executive power of Central Government can be dissipated by giving more power to the Regions. Most Modern Republics are Federations of States or Autonomous Regions and so the measure of power to be given to the regional authorities is decided by the National Constitution. A prime example of much power being held by the regions is the German Republic which is made up of powerful "Lander". This serves to balance a Federal Executive that is accompanied only by the ceremonial President.

(iii)  For the election of the Parliament (and so also the Executive) a system of Proportional Representation or approaching Proportional Representation can be adopted. This makes it far more difficult for one party to take absolute control and even if it does then voting through measures will not be as easy in a non-proportional system such as Britain's current "first-past-the-post" system. PR is likely to produce coalition governments which inherently compromise Executive Power.

(iv) The role of Protector of the Constitution can be isolated in the form of a Supreme Court or Constitutional Court. This is the norm with all types of Modern Republics and it is outrageous that this function should remain with the Executive as it does in the Kingdom. The members of the Supreme Court or Constitutional Court are chosen always by Appointment never by election.*.

B. A Presidential Republic insists on a clear separation of the Functions of Executive, Legislative and Protector of the Constitution (as well as, of course, the Judiciary). The example we are most familiar is also the oldest Presidential Republic - the United States.

The United States President is elected on a four year fixed term, which means the election is on virtually always the same date, and then assumes a purely Executive role (with the Cabinet he or she chooses) with all the Legislative Function going to Congress.

Congress, like our present Parliament, has two Houses or Chambers (this is called a "bicameral" or "two-tier" system) which are loosely referred to as the Upper and Lower Houses.

The important difference between the United States Congress and the present British Parliament is that the Upper and Lower Houses of the former are far more equal than those of the latter. The main difference between the House of Representative and the Senate is that only the House of Representatives can originate taxation bills. However, the Senate has the power to amend or reject these.

Under the British system this applies to all bills not just taxation bills. The House of Lords has no powers to originate bills, but crucially it can amend them. This is constitutionally sound for it follows the principle that only a House elected by the people should be able to pass the laws the people live under.

The United States Senate is elected although by a different route from the Representatives and, importantly, for a longer term (six years as opposed to two) and its elective status justifies it ability to originate (non-taxation) bills.

In creating a new Republic with a Presidential System, there would be no obligation to follow the United States in the relationship of two houses of Congress. There would be no obligation to have two houses, although we should insist on a vital role for the Upper House and so on a two-tier system. The relationships between each house and the President and between the two houses themselves present a range of options in framing a Presidential Republic.

C. The most significant example of a Semi-Presidential Republic is the Fifth Republic of France. Under a Semi-Presidential System not all Executive powers go to the President and his or her Cabinet, some remaining with the Lower House of Parliament.

In France, this is the House of Deputies (the Upper House being the Senate) and the fundamental division between its powers and the President's is that it is in charge of domestic policy whereas the President is in charge of foreign policy.

The issue is made more complicated by the fact that the President chooses the Head of Government in the House of Deputies (the Prime Minister) and so, to that extent, extends his or her control over domestic policy also. This becomes particularly interesting when the President's party is not the same as the one that has a majority in the deputies and so the business of Government is shared between two political parties (known as "cohabitation").

The main framer of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic was General Charles de Gaulle* who specifically allowed for periods of "cohabitation" to arise by setting the term of the President at seven years and that of the Deputies at five, guaranteeing  a staggering between elections for each, and so increasing the likelihood of each producing different winning parties. This he deemed good as it created a true Separation of Powers that has always been a principle of Republican Government.

Recently the terms have been made the same at five years, meaning Presidential elections occur as about the same time as those of the Deputies. The result, as well as being voter fatigue, is that the same party will tend to win both elections and so the political diversity and Separation of Powers in the Fifth Republic that its Framers sought has been diminished.

*          *          *

when a nation redrafts or drafts anew its Constitution, there is, as stated above, a natural tendency for the new Constitution to attempt to right particular problems that the constitution, that is being replaced, suffers from. In this way the new Constitution reflects the nation's history and experience. And there is nothing wrong with this, as long as the new Constitution adheres to sound proven republican principles.

In the case of Great Britain, the problem we now face more than any other is of Excessive Executive Power concentrated in the office of Prime Minister. This has arisen because we have a constitution dating in its fundamentals from the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 (followed by the Act of Settlement of 1701) - a period when the authority of the Monarch was still intact and so a genuine Separation of Powers was in operation.

The political authority of the Monarch became gradually eroded after 1688 and probably reached its current level of close to zero around 1900. The result was that the nation was lumbered with a constitution which gave no protection against the exercise and development of excessive Prime Ministerial power.

The full consequences of this did not become apparent until the Prime Ministership of Margaret Thatcher who ruthlessly exposed and exploited the weaknesses in the constitution to restrain Executive power and engaged in a range of economic and social engineering experiments* that permanently altered the face of Great Britain.

Prime Minister Blair, a great admirer of Thatcher, took Executive power into new areas and created inner "kitchen" cabinets of non-elected individuals, and bypassed Parliament on many occasions, preferring to address the nation not through its hallowed Institutions but through the media. The lack of real interrogation resulted in policy announcements being characterised by a distorting slant, known as "spin".

These recent experiences must mean that a new Constitution must favour a Presidential System. To replace the Monarch with a President assuming only a ceremonial role would look altogether from the Prime Minister's office in 10 Downing Street like business as usual. The opportunities for backsliding could easily make a mockery of all diligent efforts in framing the Constitution.

In any case, should we really even be thinking of creating a ceremonial political position in the 21st century? It would be an admission of failure if we cannot frame a Constitution with real roles. And what sort of candidates would want a ceremonial role? And would who bother to vote?

By all means let us have the ceremony. The Monarch's Guard can be transformed into the Republican Guard, for instance. Occasions of state can be marked by colourful display. But let us attach the ceremony to something that has real meaning and that means real power.

We need primarily a change of Constitution, but we need also a change of political culture to go with it and this second objective will only be realised if the new Constitution sends out a very strong signal that a desperately needed new order is being put in place.

And it is vital that the Constitution should be understandable to the people. The confusion of authority created by a labyrinth of Quangos so favoured by successive administrations must be brought to an end. The easy allocation of sovereignty to overseas authorities like the European Community must be questioned for laws not made in this country are seldom understood properly. And citizens must not be denied, as they are now, instruction in school in the workings of the Constitution under which they live . (No government under the existing constitution would dare encourage its examination).

The need for understandability is a strong (but not the main) argument for a Presidential Constitution. Our cousins in the United States adopted this form and its framers were highly influenced by the British constitution as it operated in the eighteenth century. The relative familiarity we already have with the way the American polity operates will mean that a British Constitution that follows the pattern of the American one will be relatively easily understood.

The House of Commons and the House of Lords can continue under their existing names, but there will be a new office of elected President. The principle power will be shared by the two elected Institutions being the President and the House of Commons. The President will assume the Executive role but will be moderated in this task by the House of Commons as the primary Legislative authority and the House of Lords as the approving and amending authority both of the House of Commons and certain Executive functions. The role of Protector of the Constitution will go the Supreme Court. The President will thus have far less authority than the existing Prime Minister*.

The people are weary of a succession of headstrong leaders, who direct affairs from behind a phalanx of media interpreters, who create evermore cumbersome laws and government machinery to interfere with our lives, who continually try to play for short term political advantage with measures that have long term implications, who seem unable to listen to measured advice in running the public services and who utilise lies, distortion and "spin" as the customary dressings for ill-conceived policies.

We will not get out of the mire that is created by all these attitudes without a radical change. In the seventeenth century, this country lead the world in creating its First Republic.

No other nation had at that moment achieved this in Modern times. This subsequently inspired the creation of new national Republics overseas, in the Old and New Worlds.

And many new Republican constitutions have been created in the last few years especially following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. New flags have been hoisted and new political titles established.

Our nation must now rediscover the experience, wisdom and courage it has displayed before during its history to once more take centre stage in forging a new political order - our Second Republic.